I'm a privacy pragmatist, writing about the intersection of law, technology, social media and our personal information. If you have story ideas or tips, e-mail me at khill@forbes.com. PGP key here.
These days, I'm a senior online editor at Forbes. I was previously an editor at Above the Law, a legal blog, relying on the legal knowledge gained from two years working for corporate law firm Covington & Burling -- a Cliff's Notes version of law school.
In the past, I've been found slaving away as an intern in midtown Manhattan at The Week Magazine, in Hong Kong at the International Herald Tribune, and in D.C. at the Washington Examiner. I also spent a few years traveling the world managing educational programs for international journalists for the National Press Foundation.
I have few illusions about privacy -- feel free to follow me on Twitter: kashhill, subscribe to me on Facebook, Circle me on Google+, or use Google Maps to figure out where the Forbes San Francisco bureau is, and come a-knockin'.

TSA agents are on the front lines for public fire over aggressive screening procedures

Attacking the TSA for its privacy-invasive screening procedures has become a favorite activity for many journalists, especially Matt Drudge. TSA horror stories are often featured prominently on The Drudge Report and he has taken to calling Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (of which the TSA is a part) “Big Sis.”

Napolitano, who doesn’t think Drudge “means [the nickname] kindly” said at a recent Politico event that Drudge is wrong in describing DHS programs as Orwellian and that “the privacy impact of new airport screening technology and similar programs are thoroughly vetted before they are implemented,” in Josh Gerstein’s words.

“We want to be conscious of civil liberties and civil rights protections—and we are,” Napolitano said, as reported by Politico.

On the same day as this piece came out, TechDirt reports on a passenger who would likely disagree with the Secretary. After a particularly aggressive patdown in March that might be better termed a feel-up, advice blogger Amy Alkon graphically described how she sobbed loudly while a TSA agent put her hands “into” her — four times. She screamed “You raped me” after the LAX patdown and took the agent’s name with plans to file charges of sexual assault. Those plans fell through after consulting an attorney, but she did blog about it and included the agent’s name, thereby inflicting her own assault — on the agent’s Google search results.

The TSA agent then hired a lawyer who contacted Alkon asking her to remove the post, threatening her with a defamation lawsuit, and asking for a settlement of $500,000. “Rape is a very serious charge,” writes lawyer Vicki Roberts on Thedala Magee’s behalf. She also says that Alkon, on a return trip to the airport in May called her client “a bad person” who had “sexually molested” her.

Free speech lawyer Marc Randazza has stepped in to assert Alkon’s right to post about her patdown experience, and to defend both her definition of the patdown as rape and, regardless of that, her right to rhetorical hyperbole. Techdirt has a copy of the letter Randazza drafted in response to the defamation threat.

“After [the agent Thedala] Magee’s assault on Ms. Alkon’s vagina and dignity, Ms. Alkon exercised her First Amendment right to recount this incident to others in person and through her blog,” writes Randazza. “This was not only her right — it was her responsibility.”

Forced to perform patdowns now required by law, TSA agents are the ones who have to face the public’s anger. Texas abandoned its effort this year to pass a law making overly aggressive patdowns a misdemeanor subjecting agents to arrest and a fine, but bloggers can certainly keep on trying the agents in the court of public opinion. I have some sympathy for the agent whose name will now be linked with rape in Google results for eternity — though it should surely serve the purpose of making her a bit less touchy-feely during patdowns — but I hope Randazza and Alkon persevere. TSA screening procedures have already taken a toll on the Fourth Amendment; let’s not add the First Amendment to the list of victims.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Thank you for writing on this topic. I searched for other stories you wrote about the TSA (as you have said you have) but I can’t find them. Either way, without sounding like I am supporting the TSA I am curious how you think the TSA can re-think their techniques. In particular, how would you secure an aircraft from: Plastic explosives, liquid-based explosives, smuggled objects or weapons in body cavities, shoe-based explosives, box cutters?

I am not supporting the TSA by asking this but I appreciate knowing that they are keeping 99.9% of shoe bombers off the planes I fly on by making people take their shoes off. The same people who complain about having to remove their steal-toe boots are usually the same ones that happily take them off to don a pair of bowling shoes and yet the internet is not full of constitutional complaints against the local bowling ally.

The point of my question is I see a lot of complaining but no one offering any real or practical alternatives to this. The TSA has a new scanners and people claim all kinds of non-sense about cancer, etc…

I wish we’d all just fly in comfy pajamas and get knock out gas as soon as we boarded. That would solve almost all air-based security risks as well as make flying much more pleasant.

It sounds like she is implying some sort of x-ray scan. I don’t want to be frisked, but I also don’t want to be bathed in x-rays. And what about the dangers to the TSA personnel? Sitting around these constant x-rays all day long. Also, DHS isn’t talking about the replacement of the TSA staff. Most of these issues are because of their poor screening measures for new hires. Obviously the power hungry and perverted will flock to these jobs.

It sounds like she is implying some sort of x-ray scan. I don’t want to be frisked, but I also don’t want to be bathed in x-rays. And what about the dangers to the TSA personnel? Sitting around these constant x-rays all day long. Also, DHS isn’t talking about the replacement of the TSA staff. Most of these issues are because of their poor screening measures for new hires. Obviously the power hungry and perverted will flock to these jobs.

I find it interesting that the blogger felt the need to make it personal. The majority of the comments on this post seem to be congratulations or agreements on the fight for policy change as opposed to the defamation suit. The majority of TSA agents that I’ve met have been courteous enough. Individuals that are doing their best to do a job. I’m not as passionate about the policy issues, but I feel for the agent that was put on blast for the unlucky one that had to be there.

Bess, I must say that in my experience the screenings have been…selective. As you were wearing “skinny jeans”, that may have been the trigger that got you screened. I was flying out of Islip one day and I am not a small guy, 6′, 250# and they didn’t bat an eyelash at me. However the woman in line ahead of me, early 30′s, 5’4″ 105# VERY nice looking about a high C or low D cup, was selected for “enhanced screening”. I thought it just a bit ridiculous as she bent over to take her shoes off, her “whale tail” was showing and by the looks of it, her very tight jeans and tight low-cut top there is no way she could have concealed a toothpick without notice. Needless to say I was a bit jealous of the screeners that day, and was thinking of volunteering to help with the screening, though I would have offered some wine, nice music, and a little romance.